Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources. Does the honourable Minister of Natural Resources have an opening statement?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask those people wanting to carry on a conversation to do so in the loge? It is getting a little loud in here. If the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) took that thing out of his ear, he might hear something. The honourable minister, to continue.
Mr. Cummings: It is probably just as well I did not see what you were referring to, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, there are a few remarks that I would like to make in introduction of the Department of Natural Resources Estimates. As I have found over the last three months, this department is very broad based, touches on the lives and affairs of almost every Manitoban. As a result, there are numerous issues which I expect the opposition will want to probe about the direction and the competency of being able to deliver services around Natural Resources. We do have numerous resources that provide us with tremendous opportunities, and my responsibility is to ensure that these resources are promoted and used in a manner that will keep them healthy and vigorous, not only for today, but for future generations.
At the same time, on numerous occasions, I have been reminded that Manitobans, to a large extent, when you include the agricultural sector, we are very dependent on the health and the well-being and the value of our natural resources. That is still the basis of how many people in this province, a majority of people in this province, have an opportunity to improve their own lot in life for their families and for the future.
At the same time, we have immediate and pressing issues that come up and none less so than the imminent flood situation that we will shortly be dealing with. This department, in conjunction with EMO and under the Department of Government Services and in conjunction with almost every affected Manitoban, in responding to what can be a very stressful, very damaging and very unfortunate string of events that can follow high water or flood events--and, of course, we are vulnerable in the sense that no matter how well our plans are made, the effects and the impacts of the vagaries of the weather and other factors which are beyond our boundaries even, will drive the potential for damage that occurs within this province.
The fact that we have just had a significant snowfall event probably mitigates against an improvement of the flood predictions that we were facing or have been facing for the last month. The fact is that preparations have been made and will continue to be made for a major flood, with opening of liaison offices in Niverville and Russell, Melita and Selkirk.
* (1430)
Mr. Chairman, as well as that and as well as being competent in preparing for the worst, if necessary, we also need to make sure that we communicate and provide information to all those who might be affected and certainly look to make sure that we are able to do that as competently as possible from now until the flood event will have receded. In working closely with Emergency Measures Organization, we hope to be able to accomplish that. We sincerely hope that the weather conditions in the next few weeks mitigate against what is still potentially one of the larger and more serious flood events that the Red River Valley will face over the last century.
Moving from floods, of course, to water--which is one of the other major responsibilities this department has in conjunction with the Department of Environment--two of the major responsibilities that we will expect to deal with in the next short while is the refurbishment of the Red River Floodway and its control structures and the Assiniboine Basin as a whole. The upper Assiniboine Basin study in co-operation with Saskatchewan has been put together and will proceed. This, I believe, is a significant step forward. The history of the Assiniboine has been somewhat--
An Honourable Member: Checkered.
Mr. Cummings: Checkered, I guess would be the right word. I am getting prompted from my colleague behind me here, and he is exactly right. One of the things that we need to be able to point to and to use as a tool to bring some rational decision making to the Assiniboine River Basin is that we involve all of the communities and affected parties along the Assiniboine. I think we have learned, I believe we have learned over the last few years, that the old adage of water ain't necessarily for drinking but it could be for fighting over probably still holds true, and maybe even more so as we see the value of our water resources and the uses to which they can be put. It is our responsibility to make sure that we do apply sound management and decision making in order to encourage the development and appropriate use of what can be a wasted or even a troublesome resource in some occasions and in some locations.
But in the long run, when the weather is not co-operating, to have some water reserves in place is an enormous asset to not only a city or a village but also to agricultural, to recreational endeavours and industrial endeavours, of course, as well. So the Assiniboine study that I referred to in the upper Assiniboine basin and also the work that has been done by the Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board have laid the groundwork, and I want to credit my predecessor and my colleagues for their farsightedness in putting together this board that was born of crisis in terms of the distinct and very onerous disagreements that arose around usage of water out of the Assiniboine. It has proven to be an effective way of bringing all those who are concerned to the table, and their concerns have turned towards rational and meaningful advice. I think this will prove in the long run to be very beneficial to everyone who lives and works within the Assiniboine River.
It has been raised before in the House, but the fact is, we are still and will be continuing to deal with high water levels in Lake Winnipegosis and Lake Manitoba, and that will be an ongoing issue that will need to be dealt with and I expect will be brought up further during these discussions.
I am pleased to announce and see the implementation of the hiring of 18 new Natural Resources officers within the department. This will bring the department's complement back to 100 percent, and I want to indicate that this seems to me is one of the more concrete demonstrations of our support for the work that the Natural Resources officers do, but also the assurance to the public and to those who are concerned in any way about the capability that we have to respond to issues around the protection of natural resources that the bringing of this new complement of officers on line will be a significant asset. It allows, of course, for aggressive enforcement if necessary.
But I would repeat here what I said at the Natural Resources officers' association annual meeting last Saturday, and that is that the same as a number of other areas of endeavour, we cannot have nor can we be expected to have a Natural Resources officer behind every tree. What we do need is significant and ongoing co-operation and support of the general public and those who are affected by the use or misuse of Natural Resources and have a co-operative approach to the management and the long-term well-being of our resources.
The role of Natural Resources officers today is probably significantly expanded in that respect, because not only are they the enforcement officers but, because of the prestige and the stature which they hold within the communities where they work and with those who they are expected to work with, they are in an excellent position to influence and coerce or co-opt, if you will, the people who are being affected by the use of the resource.
I would be more than a little surprised if there was not some time spent discussing the future of elk ranching during this debate, although it has been discussed considerably. I believe now that the facts are on the table it is the time to have a lot more rational discussion about where elk ranching is likely to go in this province and, in fact, in Canada, but certainly in western Canada. I know the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) will want to engage in some meaningful discussion to help set the direction for what is possibly in excess of a $50-million industry potentially developing within this province. The fact that we now have a significant number of elk in captivity does not mitigate entirely against the fact that there will have to be ongoing captures to build the base herd.
The Department of Agriculture is the lead responsibility in assuring the health and the well-being of that herd once they are in capture and have established the appropriate guidelines and rules for that, but the Department of Natural Resources is and will continue to be responsible for the capture, and I would like to engage in some discussion about where we have been in terms of the capture and where we anticipate going.
It seems to me that there are two opportunities that flow from this. One is the existing interest that has been expressed by those who normally have ongoing interests in agricultural endeavour, but there is also a significant opportunity for the First Nations or the native population of this province who have expressed significant interest in elk ranching. There is an opportunity for co-operation and development on their behalf in an industry that has, I believe, some natural opportunities available for them, and I look forward to working with them in that respect.
At a meeting with the Elk Advisory Board in Swan River two to three weeks ago, I expressed that same opinion and want to express it for the record here again today, because I know my colleagues in government on this side of the House believe that this is an important opportunity if, in fact, there is a willingness on all sides, and I want to indicate that there is a willingness on our part to expand the opportunities within our First Nations communities, if they are, in fact, so interested.
Following up on the use of our resources, of course forestry still has a significant potential for growth. There has been enormous growth in forestry opportunities in the province in the last 10 years. That has raised a lot of concerns by those who are watching, whether or not we are appropriately managing our forestry resources. At the same time, I would again remind all of us that we have an enormous opportunity for growth, provision of jobs and wealth within our province, and if we do it correctly, that will be an ongoing and sustained industry that we can all be proud of.
* (1440)
We have had the good fortune--and I can remember debates in this House when Louisiana-Pacific was referred to as anything but good fortune. The critics were coming out from behind every tree or from behind almost every mike on the other side of the House. The fact is Louisiana-Pacific has brought enormous opportunity to the Swan River Valley, and it has created a use for a wood supply that was frankly considered waste and a nuisance up until the ability to put it into oriented strand board was provided through the development of the Louisiana-Pacific plant.
So, again, I think it is one of those developments where the best way to prove that it is what the proponents have always said it would be is to demonstrate over the years that it is a sound industry, and it is not just Louisiana-Pacific that is involved, but the cutting practices of the contractors and all of those who work with Louisiana-Pacific. But, obviously, as the main purchaser of the product, everything that happens out there in the forest and on the roads is going to be linked back to the term Louisiana-Pacific.
So I hope we can have some meaningful discussion about the long-term opportunities, because at the same time Repap has forged itself into a profitable company. The plant at The Pas is, in fact, a profitable portion of the Repap holdings, but it has based the strength of its growth more on the lumber aspect than it has on the pulp and paper industry, and given the way the markets went, it has been very fortuitous for those who are part of the supply chain, if you will, for Repap. But, again, the opportunity for a change of ownership--and I do see it as much of an opportunity as it is a risk, because in fact the management has improved dramatically at this operation. It is known as an effective and efficient operation, and I believe there is no reason to be concerned about it not continuing in that respect, but it is a significant harvester of softwoods in northern Manitoba.
The Lake Winnipeg fishery is of concern. We will be announcing steps to manage and hopefully reduce the harvest pressure on pickerel and sauger stocks in the lake. We need to make sure that they are there for the long-term future and stability of those communities. A $14-million gross domestic product comes from that industry. We want to make sure that it continues to come from that industry, that it is not just seen as a way of ratcheting down the opportunity for the fishermen in and around Lake Winnipeg but an opportunity to, in fact, stabilize and ultimately enhance that opportunity.
In that respect, there have been 22 organizations throughout the province that have received funding from the Fisheries Enhancement Initiative. Over the past four years, 95 fish habitat improvement and protection projects have been supported by initiatives like this. They have led, I believe, to a significant improvement in the rehabilitation of the supply of stocks. It is a beginning and one that needs to be supported and continued and aggressively pursued.
Mr. Chairman, this is National Wildlife Week. We have been involved in projects that foster and promote sustainable development at the local level through the Special Conservation Fund. This fund encourages all Manitobans to become involved in projects that support wildlife and its habitat to the benefit of future generations. We have established the Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Initiative, which will include a habitat enhancement charge of $5 on all hunting licences, and announced the increased populations of waterfowl and elk should allow for selectively increased hunting for 1997.
Conditions across southern Manitoba this past year have been very severe, and it has created an unpredictable situation for deer populations. Perhaps unpredictable is not the right word; at this point, however, one that we are not particularly able or desirous of attempting to accurately predict, because we do not yet know the survival rate of this winter. But we will monitor the situation closely and make sure that any necessary adjustments will be made during the season. I believe the hunting guide will reflect that. There is no desire to eliminate the opportunity for hunting, but if in fact we have had excessive winter kill, adjustments will have to be made prior to the seasons being opened. I assume that the sportsmen of the province will in fact co-operate in that respect, because it is an important asset that they will want to take part of the harvest and to participate in what to many of them is a very enjoyable sport.
Mr. Chairman, I suppose I could shorten this, but I do want to make one brief comment directly to the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) that he did unfortunately misinterpret the term "fees" and what that means in relationship to the charges, and he went on to comment that Manitoba was increasing its fees and not putting the money back into the department or into the parks for usage. Unfortunately, he was wrong. I can understand why he was wrong, because the headline "fee" was used in the Estimates papers that was reviewed, but in fact I hope he will put on the record that he did not know, or does he know today that this meant increasing fees at the park entrance gates and all of those things that are associated with the term "fee"? Because, in fact, the dollars that are being reflected, the majority of them going back into the general revenues of the government are from leasing additional or sale of leases for additional lots within the developing areas of our parks. I am sure he did not intend to mislead the folks, but as late as a couple of days ago, the Snow Lake News was still printing that park fees were going up. I hope he will take the opportunity to put on the record that that is not really what is happening.
The department is spending about $1.6 million on capital this year. About a million of that will go towards the Assiniboine River diking. The balance will go to campsite electrification at major provincial campgrounds and water improvement services to our campgrounds. Undertaking major improvement to parks will include additionally $250,000 for new shower buildings at Falcon Lake and Nutimik. New showers will also be constructed at St. Malo, a number of other areas where we are doing maintenance, including a million dollars being expended to improve campgrounds and roads at Hecla Island as well.
As well, obviously with dollars like that we are referring to the main roads as much as anything, but providing the improvement for access in that area, and I am sure that will be a subject for some discussion shortly. The roads at Birds Hill Park will be improved, as well as the lake and access to it in respect of the 1999 Pan Am Games, and that work is now underway.
Mr. Chairman, that puts on record a few of the issues, some of the concerns that we are dealing with, but there are a multitude of other ones and I am quite prepared to open it up for discussion.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the honourable minister for those comments. Does the critic for the official opposition party, the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), have any opening comments?
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by thanking the minister for his statement in flagging the issues that I too hope we will be engaging in some debate over the next several days. I want to thank the--[interjection] Weeks, months, I am here until the cows come home.
* (1450)
I also want to thank the minister for responding to my request for the Legislative Review, the Expenditure Estimates this morning. It did give me a chance to look through and just get an idea of where this minister is going to be expending some of the Estimates that have been granted to his department. As I do that as well, I want to pay tribute to the staff of the Department of Natural Resources for working diligently in putting those Estimates together in a way in which I, as the critic, have a fairly easy time in understanding. I am sure that I will be all the more wiser once the series of Estimates gets done. We are going to see if, I guess over the next several days or weeks, I am a good student and whether the minister is a good teacher or not. We both have a big job ahead of us.
Like I said, I would like to, on the record, acknowledge the staff of the Department of Natural Resources for the work that they have been doing and the co-operative way in which they have answered any of the questions that I have had to pose and any clarifications that I have needed in the vast array of issues that crop up in the area of natural resources. Their assistance is very much appreciated by myself and I am sure by my colleagues who, also in their work as MLAs, have from time to time to deal with Natural Resources issues.
I also want to pay tribute to the Natural Resources officers, whom I have a lot of opportunities to speak with, including on the weekend somewhat. I always have the greatest amount of respect for those who are at the front lines of any of the government departments that we deal with. Being a teacher I considered myself on the front line of education. I know nurses on the front line of health are no different than Natural Resources officers on the front line of enforcing the laws that we come up with here in the Legislature. In many ways the job of the Natural Resources officers on the front lines takes on a whole new meaning from jobs that are on the front lines in other areas.
Given the changes that have occurred in natural resource issues over the last several decades, the job of a Natural Resources officer has become a lot more high stakes. When we are dealing with laws that produce much higher penalties for those who abuse our natural resources, that makes the game a lot more high stakes and puts Natural Resources officers in a lot tougher positions a lot more often. Natural Resources officers are dealing now with smuggling rings to the extent that they never had to in past years, illegal trading in animal parts and such things on an international level, which is something that we do not have to deal with here so much in the Legislature other than making the laws that we hope will curtail this kind of an abuse, but it is the Natural Resources officers who are out there on the front lines enforcing the laws that we come up with and in that way making very much a contribution to protection of our resources, whether they be wildlife or otherwise.
Mr. Chairman, I have been keenly aware of the importance of natural resources and resources of our province as a whole. As I think everybody realizes, we live in a province that is blessed with natural resources perhaps like no other part of the country or maybe even part of the world, and I can remember from a very young age partaking in the resources of this province, with my family and my grandfather, fishing in the area of my colleague the MLA for Swan River, fishing up at Steeprock Bay, catching pickerel and thinking that it was quite a fun event, quite a fun family event to go to.
It is my hope that the kind of management practices that this government and governments down the road will adopt will ensure that these resources, whether they be pickerel or otherwise, are there and available for the use of our citizens generation after generation. I think everyone in this Legislature has had some experience with the vast and abundant resources that our province has, and I think we understand the importance of these resources to our economy as well.
There is no doubt that part of the strength of our province is how diversified we are into many different resources that provide us with jobs and with the sustenance that we need to survive as a society. That, of course, as the minister pointed out in his opening remarks, is in addition to the agricultural base upon which Manitoba has benefited from over the course of our history.
This is the third Estimates for Natural Resources that I have been involved in, and it is something that I look forward very much to participating in because we do get to spend a lot of time talking about the issues in Natural Resources that are important. Probably the most prevalent of the discussions that has taken place in Natural Resources Estimates since the last provincial election has had to do with floods, and judging by the performance of nature on the weekend, we are going to be talking a lot about floods in the next several weeks to come.
I was quite disappointed because it seemed to me that we were getting a nice runoff, a nice slow melt, just like we were hoping to get, and then, all of a sudden, out from nowhere comes 43.6 centimetres of snow or whatever it was that we got. Some people I know are calling it the storm of the century.
My hope now is that we are done with the storm of the century, and we do not get another one. One of my constituents told me, though, that we are to have three snows on the back of the crow, and this is the second one that we have had since I saw the first crow, at least in the Dauphin area. I do not want to be accused of doom and gloom here, but let us keep our fingers crossed that it does not happen again. It is only April and this is Manitoba after all. By flagging that, I do not want to depress people at all, but I think we have to keep our eyes open. It increases the responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources to monitor the snow cover that we have, to monitor the degree of the melt and the rate of the melt, to monitor the ice jams that will inevitably take place along the Red River, particularly in the Selkirk area, and to have the staff available to do these jobs.
At a meeting in Selkirk sponsored by my colleague the MLA for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), I thought there was a very good turnout of people from that area. A lot of very good suggestions were talked about, were discussed. I appreciated the forthrightness and the participation of folks from the Department of Natural Resources and folks from the Department of Government Services for talking with the people who attended that meeting. I think those kinds of meetings are helpful because it allows the people in the province who have a stake in what happens to their property and to their belongings, their houses, the chance to have an input into what they think can help the situation.
This is an area, too, I think, where the government and the opposition has a lot of common ground to stand on. I think that our offer in the last little while to co-operate with the government in any way that we can should be accepted by members on the government side. It is a time when neither side of the House wants to see a lot of destruction and a lot of pain. We also have a situation south of the border where we could inherit a whole lot of snow just naturally, but we could inherit a whole lot of water and other problems with some of the projects that the Americans are talking about these days. There is another good example where the government side of the House and the opposition side of the House could band together in a co-operative way and work for the protection and the good of the people in our part of the country who live close by our rivers, which could end up in their basements.
* (1500)
Flood is going to be a hot topic over the next little while. My experience, as well, with the Department of Natural Resources over the last couple of years also indicates that another hot issue tends to be the fire situations which we have gotten ourselves into in the last couple of springs. Indeed, two years ago when I was asking questions of the former Minister of Natural Resources, he stated that he felt like he was fighting forest fires in his hip waders, and he was exactly right on. At the same time as flood conditions were happening throughout the southern part of Manitoba, most of the north was on fire.
Again, in times of disaster, I think it is advisable for members of the Legislature on both sides of the House to follow the good example that was set by Manitobans this weekend in the middle of a snowstorm, the good example of Manitobans that was set in flood conditions and, indeed, the good example set by Manitobans in places that were threatened by fire, in that we should be working together on these problems and co-operating and keeping each other informed as to what the exact situation is and, in that way, I think we could provide a lot better service for the people who are or who are potentially going to be involved in any of these natural disasters.
The minister quite correctly spoke in his opening remarks on water and the problems that we have with the water that flows from one end of our province to the next. Again, the key word here is going to be sustainability. Water quality is an issue that comes across my desk quite often, amount of water in aquifers, amount of planning that goes in to use the water that we are fortunate enough to have in our province.
What people fail to understand sometimes, Mr. Chairman, is that water flows and it flows to your neighbours and it flows to the next town and, if you build a big culvert one place and sent a whole bunch of water down through that was not being sent before, you are causing a problem downstream. What that tells us is that we should not necessarily sit back and say we cannot put that bigger culvert in or we cannot put that bridge here or build a dam there. What it tells us is that we have to have a strategy, we have to have a co-ordinated effort and we have to get all kinds of input from people who are going to be affected by this water.
I mean, we are intelligent people in this province. We can look forward, we can predict what is going to happen. If we have a project happening in one part of the province, we can predict what the effects are going to be downstream. In that way we should be able to design our project so that we do not cause a whole lot of hassle for people living downstream from a river.
Connected with what the minister was saying in the area of water is the fishery, a problem in my part of the country. When you talk about Lake Winnipegosis and the fishery, or some people would say the lack of a fishery at Winnipegosis now, many decisions have been made over the course of the last number of decades to allow a situation to occur where you destroy a natural resource.
We have done it before as human beings. We have destroyed lakes before; we have fished them out. The challenge now is getting everybody together who have some ideas on replacing and rejuvenating the resources that we have messed up in the past and being committed to a plan that says we are going to refurbish, let us say, for example, Lake Winnipegosis.
I use Lake Winnipegosis as an example because I do not want to see that kind of a scenario take place in other lakes like Lake Winnipeg or Lake Manitoba. I think we have to learn some of the lessons of the past, and I think we have to take those lessons and apply them today, so that we do not end up in a situation where we destroy a fishery and the jobs that go along with a fishery, whether that be Lake Winnipegosis or Lake Winnipeg or Lake Dauphin.
The minister also flagged forestry as a topic for discussion in Estimates, and indeed it will be. I do not want the minister to think that the only use for forestry and trees in Manitoba is to cut them down. That is one of the uses. There should be, in my opinion, a lot more time spent thinking about other things that we can be doing in the area of forestry. Certainly, I do not foresee going back to the days when my relatives around the turn of the century took their horse teams up into the Duck Mountains and cut trees down and dragged them out, but as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) points out, those were the same people who built this country. They were the people who instilled in us a sense of sustainability, I would hope, and I would hope that is something that the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues across the way will be able to learn as well. I have not seen a whole lot of that evidenced yet, but I hold out hope for the folks across the way in the Legislature.
The minister also talked somewhat about wildlife, in particular elk ranching, a law now in this province. The bill has been passed last fall allowing a wild animal to be treated as domestic livestock. The bill has been passed. It is now to the point where we need to be very vigilant in watching how the government puts together the regulations governing elk ranching. It is going to be very interesting to watch, given what happened here just shortly before the Legislature sat and all the press that was surrounding the way the elk ranching capture has been played out so far--[interjection] Most of it not, but the way the government has gone about capturing these elk and some of the fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants kinds of rules that they have been making up as they go along.
The question right now with elk ranching is who is going to benefit. Who is going to benefit from taking a natural resource that belongs to all the people of Manitoba and turning it over to the few who will benefit from it? It will be very interesting to see the regulations that this government will come up with governing that and just how they will go about dispersing these elk from the people of Manitoba who rightly own them to a few people who will benefit from this elk ranching industry.
The other issue which has just been referred to by the Minister of Natural Resources has to do with fees. He harkens back to a couple of weeks ago when I asked a question in the Legislature having to do with the fees that were collected by this government from seniors in the province, from entry fees at the gates, a practice that I was told was going to be turned back into the Department of Natural Resources, back into parks.
I am going to need at some point in these Estimates the minister to be a lot more specific and a lot more clear in his explanation because, Mr. Chairman, even the quick look that I have had through the expenditure and Estimates for the department that I have been given, that indeed those fees have not been turned back into the natural resources, back into parks, back into the improvement of parks. What I see is the regular amount of money that is always given to parks going back into parks.
The fees that the minister talks about indeed are going back into general revenue. Now, I am hoping that the minister can be a lot more clear in his explanation and convince me that indeed that money is going back into the betterment of our parks, which I do not think would get a whole lot of opposition from park users in Manitoba. An idea that I think everybody can agree on is that Manitoba parks should be maintained and they should be improved. The question is, is the money that the minister is raising through park fees actually going back into that, or is that money being dumped into general revenue so that this government can build up its slush fund and offer tax breaks and that sort of thing come next election?
* (1510)
Well, yesterday in the House the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) called it a snowy day fund, and the Premier has been calling it a rainy day fund. I figure you take the two together and you get what it really is, and that is a slush fund. I just want to point out one of the two trends that I find troublesome in the Department of Natural Resources. The first one I have flagged two weeks ago by asking the question about the fees and where the revenues from those fees are going. The second one is the taking of resources in our province that are public and simply moving them onto the very few in the province who can benefit from this.
An example that I would give you is indeed the elk ranching, which I think is a privatization of a public resource, and I would love to see the $5 hunting licences and where that money is going as well or whether that is just going into general revenue or whether there is a plan for that hunting licence to go back into the work towards moose habitat or elk habitat or whatever. I will be very interested to hear the Natural Resources minister clarify that for me.
I think that I just want to thank you for the opportunity of going through Estimates in Natural Resources. I look forward to the--[interjection] Not quite that quick. That would cut into my fun very much so, Mr. Chair, and I would suggest the fun of the minister as well, but I look forward to answers from the minister and also some time for my colleagues to share in questioning the Natural Resources minister on various issues that may have an effect on their own individual constituencies.
So, with that, Mr. Chair, I would close my opening remarks.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the critic for the official opposition party for those remarks. I would remind all honourable members at the committee that the debate on the Minister's Salary, item 1.(a) is deferred until all other items on the Estimates of this department are passed.
At this time, we invite the minister's staff to take their place in the Chamber. Is the minister prepared to introduce his staff present at this time?
Are you not live? There you go.
Mr. Cummings: Actually I am live. It was the mike that was not. I have been joined by Dave Tomasson, who is the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, and Bill Podolsky, who is the Director of Administration for Natural Resources.
Mr. Chairperson: The item before the committee is item 1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $383,000.
The honourable member for Dauphin. If the honourable member for Dauphin is not going to get up to be recognized, he might have to raise his hand so that I come over to him, because I will not know who is asking questions here.
An Honourable Member: It is whoever catches your attention.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable Minister of Agriculture for that information.
The honourable member of Dauphin, to continue--[interjection]
Mr. Struthers: I checked with my consultant, a long-standing member, and he said I did not have to.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I am not looking to poke fingers in anybody's eye, but I recall having learned at the knee of the Minister of Agriculture the long-standing traditions of this House. I must admit that I am of the same feeling that he is, that traditionally up until the last short while all members stood when they were addressing this House.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Brandon East, on the same point of order?
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): On the same point of order. Certainly the member is correct. I have been here for 27 years or so, and that is true. Most of the years this has been the case, but it was my impression the last couple of years--whether I agreed with it or not is beside the point--there has been the practice of members sitting in their seats asking questions and with my own eyes have seen ministers sit and answer questions and make statements and members of this side sit and ask questions and make statements. So it seems that we have developed a new rule in the Committee of Supply, and I defer to you, Mr. Chairman. I think you should be able to refer to your notes or to the rulings that we have had in the past on this matter.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Agriculture, on the same point of order.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chair, I want to assure you, Sir, and all members of the House that I appreciate that traditions change, and if it is more comfortable for members to resort to the practice that has begun in the past year to speak from their seated position, that is no difficulty for me.
It is with you, Sir, that I have the difficulty that raised me to challenge your ruling. Of course, this is what happens when we tinker with what seems to be kind of mindless tradition. There is a reason for most things. One of the reasons why members rise in this Chamber to speak and to get the attention of the Speaker or the Chair is because they can be seen.
You asked my honourable friend the member for Dauphin to start waving with his hands or giving some sign language--teacher, I have to go to the bathroom now--before he would be recognized, and I found that rather demeaning.
So it just occurred to me that there was a reason why it was easier for Chairs and Speakers and for members to be duly recognized if they did what we traditionally did, stand up when we want to offer some contribution to this Chamber.
Mr. Chairperson: I would like to thank all honourable members for the information. Oh, the honourable member for Portage, on the same point of order.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage la Prairie): On this particular point of order, I would like to just make a couple of observations, Mr. Chairman.
I think we have an important opportunity here to perhaps restore in some small way the respect with which our general population, our constituents might view the events that take place in this Chamber in recent weeks. In my just five years here, I have noticed a general decline in some aspects of decorum and attire within the Chamber, just recently seeing one member wearing a skidoo suit in the Chamber with justifiable excuse, I suppose, another member wearing a track suit the other day.
These types of things do no not reflect well, I believe, on the conduct and the behaviour that should occur here. Attire is just one expression of it, I know, but conduct in terms of rising to answer or ask questions is another aspect of that.
So rather than see us further deteriorate to the point where members are lounging in the chairs while asking questions, asking questions from the loges or from the gallery, I do not relish seeing the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) in a tracksuit or any other member of this Chamber for that matter. I think we should try to restore some semblance of conduct and proper attire in the Chamber.
This is just one way in which we can make a positive step in that direction. Mr. Chair, I encourage you to take that important step today with the support of all of us, I hope.
* (1520)
Mr. Chairperson: Seeing that I do not have anybody else on this point of order, I would thank the honourable members for their advice on this matter. Some of you did stray a little bit further than the initial matter that was before the Chamber at this time, but I do believe if you have a strong feeling on that, you could bring it to the Rules committee at the next sitting, and we could look at those matters.
At this time, the rule before the House that I have before me clearly states that the critic can take the front-row seat but does not say whether he should be standing or sitting. Clearly, we have in the past two and three years, as I have been sitting in this Chamber, been giving the right of the members to do this questioning sitting.
If the honourable members want to challenge that, they are more than able to challenge my ruling at this time, but I am ruling that the member can sit and ask his questions, but I thank all honourable members for their information on this matter.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Dauphin, to continue.
Mr. Struthers: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to draw the minister's attention to the document entitled 1997 Manitoba Estimates of Revenue, page 10. I think what we might as well do is address this matter of fees right off the bat. If it is something that is causing any misconceptions out there in the public then I would be one to want to get them cleared up, and the best way for the minister and I to do that is to go to the section entitled Other Revenue Continued, Natural Resources (a) Fisheries Fees and Sundry, and what I would appreciate the minister doing is explaining where the fees come from and where the fees are going.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, we could proceed line by line on this. If the member is seeking that detail, we will have to assemble, but I am going to make the observation, which is in fact substantiated very easily, that one of the things that happens in government, except for specially designated funds that are on occasion held outside of government, the snow fund would be an example, the levy for the Manitoba recycling program is another example, the tire recycling program is another example. It seems like I have a trail of these behind me, but the fact is that those are designated revenues that go to designated funds and are returned directly for the purposes for which they were first raised.
That is in any administration, whether it is this one or any other. It is the exception rather than the rule in terms of designation of dollars. The best example of that and the most glaring example, probably, is the health and education tax on gasoline. Who, besides me and a few others, are old enough to remember when that is what it was called? Generally speaking, governments redistribute revenues through the general revenues of government into priority areas where they then want to see appropriate expenditures made.
The objection that I took was to park fees where we see a dramatic, well, a relatively dramatic larger figure for what is generically called "fees," and I say to the member, as fairly as I can, that we did not, nor do I intend to, question the fact that when the term "fee" is applied you should believe that is in fact fees. What I am saying is that a big portion of that is in fact the revenue that we receive from selling additional park leases in the immediate future, and that is not something that I would think even he would insist be seen as going directly back into parks.
Let us not make any mistake about the fact that we have over the last period of time made it much more cost appropriate, if you will, or that the user-pay process in a number of areas of fees, licences and costs--but remember in the park system, any of the figures that you are talking about in this year's estimates are not related to admission fees. We do see increases in service costs to those who are cottagers within the system. We also see an increase in a fee that would be an offset to the education tax that is not levied within our park system on permanent residents. So using that generic name, we have increased the amount of revenue on that line, but we have not for this year increased the fees to seniors or anyone else planning to come through the gate of the parks. But I think the member would have to acknowledge that switching to a year-round park pass a year ago or two years ago, whenever that was instituted, was obviously an increase, but at the same time it reflects the reality that services we are providing there can either come from that type of revenue combined with other revenues, and that is in fact what happens.
It is not a complete user-fee system. General revenues do support the Department of Natural Resources to a large extent and our park system, as well. It does not seem to me that a $20-a-year parks admission fee for annual year-long entrance is an onerous cost. I would be surprised if the member would argue otherwise, but I can give him some idea in terms of service fees for services within the parks to those who are residents or cottagers there.
Those are to be discussed directly with the owners, community by community, bay by bay, if necessary. The Parks branch personnel will make every effort over the course of the summer to talk to the individual people and communities about what is the real cost of garbage pickup, what is the real cost of maintenance of the roads. The reason for that is not to determine the absolute last dollar that we can take in revenue. It is to create a fair situation for those who are in fact paying, because there is quite a difference between being on an ungraded trail on a yet-undeveloped bay where your summer home is going to go or your cottage, as opposed to someone who may be in a well-developed and well-serviced--perhaps even chlorided or on occasion paved--area within a park, but primarily you look at the costs of the services and bring them as close to the local situation as possible.
So that is part of the explanation behind the revenues that we are taking in from parks, but I have a listing of revenues that will occur, any revenues that we will be receiving increases against the rentals. There is the one area where we moved from a 3.6 percent to a 3.8 percent of appraised market value for the rental of Crown lands for a vacation home lot rental. That is included in revenues that will come from the Parks area.
* (1530)
I am not sure if the member wants to go through these items in that manner or if he is looking for an explanation on page 10. We can also provide the explanation there if he chooses to look at those figures. In fact, there are some reductions and some increases for an overall increase, but it looks like about $5 million. It changes there. Is that the area you would like to focus on?
Mr. Struthers: My problem is this: I do not want to be a critic of Natural Resources who goes around the province putting misinformation out to the public. My information that I have so far leads me to believe that monies saved from the fishing fees that are charged by this province are not being rolled back into providing fish habitat or fish enhancement or stocking, which is a logical place for those fees to go. The information that I have been given so far, though, indicates that the amount of money that you have raised through fishing fees is going back into general revenue. Now, if it is going back into general revenue, I would love to be the critic for Natural Resources going across the province and pointing this out to people so that they know where their money is going. But I do not want to be doing that if I am not accurate.
What I need is the information from the minister to help me in presenting a clear and honest picture to the people who are involved in fishing in Manitoba. So if that means going through each of those 10 lines in the Natural Resources under Other Revenue, then I think it would be a worthwhile effort to do that.
Mr. Cummings: I will give the member an example. I trust that he knows we are not trying to mislead him, and I appreciate the comments he just put on record, but for example, in Parks and Natural Areas in the Supplementary Information that he has in front of him, on page 71 he can compare directly there the Estimates of Expenditure. In fact, we are increasing, not by multimillions but by about $300,000 to $400,000 the expenditures that are going into that area. He could then, if he wishes to, break that down in such and such a park being well serviced or staffed appropriately, but in the end these are the macro figures broken into what would be more direct areas of concern that he is raising.
The question that he raised about Parks Fees, out of the $1.6 million that he says is an increase in revenue from fees for parks, first of all in the direct-cost recovery that I referred to earlier where people are in fact receiving garbage pickup and so on, it becomes a fee-for-service, if you will, or direct-cost recovery. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to do because if those monies are recovered appropriately--and those are the people who are the cottage owners who would in fact be making, I would assume, more use of the park area and the services within it--in that area we will recover about four-hundred-and-some-thousand dollars.
The chief place of residency, which is the tax offset, if you will, or the fee to replace the fact that there is not a tax levied against the full-time residents, there is $120,000 worth of revenue to be generated, and sale of leases and for cottage lots is $1.10 million. So there is the vast majority of those dollars that come under that heading. Also, an additional sum of $110,000 for a vacation home lot rental, as opposed to cottage lots, and there is another minor item of about $14,000 that is a negative, that is in fact going down from sundry charges that we are no longer receiving. So that gives you your total, roughly, of $1.6 million.
I would hope you would agree that while, yes, there is an increase in revenue there, and even some of it is a direct cost to the cottagers as a result of offsetting their cost of service in the area, that in fact we are not going after anybody for revenues just to funnel into general revenues. In fact, I would hope--as the member would like to put on the record--if we have a chance to increase the revenue by the sale of leases for cottage lots that in fact when that may go back into general revenues, it will go back into general revenues. If he looks at the gross dollars for Natural Resources, he will also see that they are up this year. So there is a trade-off there that is not unreasonable.
I want to put this on the record, and I do not want to abuse my time. But the fact is we recognize that the parks are an asset, that they have to be maintained. The service has to be of quality that attracts people, because this is not just part of Natural Resources from the park system. This is part of our overall tourism package in this province. This is also an economic benefit to the province. That is the very question that was being addressed when you look at some of the pocket parks or mini parks that were being managed by Highways, in some cases, and for various reasons, by Natural Resources, why some of them can be better handled locally where people have a local ongoing interest in them and want to maintain them for purposes other than what we may have been maintaining them for.
So there is a general thrust to make sure that the parks that are being used are attractive and attract people, but they in fact are not being abandoned because we cannot find the dollars in general revenues. We are trying to bring some balance to that through the fee system where fees are being used, through development of road systems which goes to a direct benefit to tourism.
We know that people come to our parks for a tourism experience. They do not want to be eating dust for the last 20 miles before they get to their destination. That is a cost that sometimes is not even attributed to parks. The Department of Highways eats, in fact, millions of dollars over a period of time to support the road system so that our park systems can be more attractive, not within the park boundaries necessarily but certainly so that access is available.
Mr. Struthers: I thank the minister for the clarification that he offered on the line having to do with Park Fees. My understanding of the fee that the Department of Natural Resources is levying towards cottage owners in provincial parks was at least partly based on the concept of fairness and that the logic is why would somebody not pay a fee for living in that part of our province. My question then is why is that money going to the provincial government and not to the local school divisions or the local R.M.s?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I believe the answer is that it is going to the school divisions, because the province supports those school divisions in support of the children who are coming from the areas where no school tax is levied. In fact, there is a recognition of the costs associated with educating those children, and I believe it comes from general revenues of the province. So, therefore, the trade-off, not dollar for dollar, but the principle is in fact true.
Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairman, I would be interested in looking back at line (a) Fisheries Fees and Sundry and getting the same kind of an explanation on that line as I received on the line that the minister referred to with Parks Fees. The amount of money showing in the Estimates book here indicates that there is $23,000 more in fees being collected. The people who have approached me who fish are wondering if that money is being put into fish rehabilitation or fish habitat or stocking of fish. The same concept--is the money being used directly back into Fisheries or is it being put into general revenue somewhere?
(Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, the member asks a legitimate question, but perhaps if I explain the thinking that was behind these changes, he will appreciate better the--not insignificant, obviously, but not a huge amount. We are looking at a $20,000-increase.
* (1540)
The nonresident sport licence increases are a large part of that, over $100,000, and resident-seniors conservation fishing licence at $6. Roughly, and this is an estimated figure, it may not produce the amount--or it might produce a lot more--of $100,000. The fact is, at $6, while I am not unsympathetic to our senior population, I do not think $6 is an unreasonable request for a modified fishing licence.
The balance of that, there was an increase in vendor commissions which takes away from that. Vendor commissions were doubled. Not a rich fee. It went from 50 cents to $1, but it was in fact doubled, because some of the smaller places who were handling licences, in fact, were out of pocket a fair bit while they waited to sell them. They had to put out money up front to gain the licences in the first place.
There was a reason for that as well. The delinquency rate on licences that were put out by the department to vendors was higher than it should be, frankly. There really should not be a reason for that, but in fact it happened that people were selling the licences and not reimbursing the province. In fact, enforcement was necessary to collect. So that is not a good use of NRO's or anybody else's time.
Unfortunately a few inappropriate situations led to a change for everybody, but it undoubtedly saved the department a fair bit of time in the fact that they no longer have to enforce, but it does mean that we should put out a better reimbursement for those who are prepared to put their own money up front.
Also, we rounded off all of the licence costs to include GST. We obviously rounded up. Instead of it being $5.65, it is now $6, or whatever is the nearest dollar up. That created some additional revenue as well. But remember that we are putting out a million dollars into programs that have Fisheries Enhancement benefits. The Fisheries Enhancement program itself is $350,000; the conservation fund is $430,000. Every time you improve habitat or reduce negative impacts on a fishery spawning area and all of those areas where there is some vulnerability, plus the introduction of a wildlife stamp which will produce $225,000 as well, that will go back into the protection and enhancement of stocks.
So is it going dollar for dollar? You could say we were putting more in. The fact is that is where we are able to access general revenues to enhance the responsibilities that we undertake. This, by the way, does not take away from the basic enforcement and management programs that the department has responsibility for annually.
Mr. Struthers: I realize that for a period of a lot of years the government has been funding fish enhancement programs, stocking programs and habitat programs for fish. The programs did not spring up last year because of these fees, and I understand that. The concern that I am expressing is that the amount of money that is going in from these fishing fees and licence increases that the minister has talked about, what I am concerned about is that money may be going into the pot of money that is available for Natural Resources, but the pot of money coming to Natural Resources from Treasury Board, or from wherever else the Natural Resources gets its money from, is lessened to the same amount as to what the fishing fees are going into.
So on the one hand you could be saying that money is going into the Department of Natural Resources, back into fish stocking and all the rest of it, but does that mean that the Finance minister is giving you less money to begin with, thus just playing a shell game and saying that it is going into here but actually it is just going to subsidize the amount of money originally coming from the Finance minister?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, the member can raise those questions legitimately, but I think he should recognize that in every area of responsibility, and I would suggest every jurisdiction across this country and in every type of administration, there have been financial strains that have come against the budgets. Natural Resources took a significant reduction a few years ago. There was no question about that. It caused a lot of anguish for employees, but we believe we handled that as sensitively as possible.
There has been a lot of work that has changed, however, as well. The forestry requirements are up. The management of all of our resources need to be appropriate. The fact that we have returned to full complement of NR officers, I ask rhetorically, where does he think that money would come from if it does not come out of general revenues, or into revenues that the province has acquired through fees or through levies that we put against users of the resource? He can question whether or not there is enough stumpage. He can question whether or not there is enough licence fee. He made the reference earlier about taking an elk from the wild and who was going to benefit. I am not sure off the top of my head what an elk licence is worth, but let us say it is worth a hundred bucks, and I do not think it is. That elk is worth $8,000, $10,000, $20,000 to the public. You could argue that, given the price that elk are selling for in other jurisdictions. But if you do not sell any, you cannot acquire that. The same thing is true here. If we are talking about a sport fishery, there is an age-old argument out there with the commercial fishery. There are people who, for good and sound reasons, believe you should set down a commercial fishery in some areas and let the sport fishermen take over.
You are going to have to get the revenue out of the taxes that the tourist operator receives in providing a guided experience for that fisherman, or you are going to have to take it out of the lodge that he stays in while he is out there fishing, or you are going to have to take it out of the taxes that went on the boat that he bought, or you are going to have to take some of it, and I would hope you would take some of it out of the fee he pays for the opportunity to catch that fish, for which the taxes are going to enhance the opportunity for that fish to, in fact, live and grow and be caught in whatever body of water we are talking about.
(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)
So it is all tied together. I am quite prepared to debate the appropriateness of the level of these charges, and I think that is a little bit of where the member is coming from. Is it appropriate to charge what we do for a fishing licence? Are we providing, in fact, the opportunity for fish to be there? I mean, you buy a licence and you do not catch a fish, how many years are you going to do that? There is a balance there which we are also very conscious of.
I relate it again to the elk licence. Who is benefiting from this? If I get an elk licence and I shoot an elk, you could argue that I have just taken $5,000 or $6,000 worth of meat, of natural resource, that belongs to every taxpayer in this province. That is pretty cheap meat. Now I know all the other things that go with that: the cost of gear and the cost of getting there, and everything else. Sometimes it is the most expensive meat in the freezer. The fact is, if you begin to debate the value of the resource, and that is legitimate to do, there is an awful lot of other things that come to play, not to mention the recreational aspects which our friend from The Pas is referencing.
* (1550)
For many people, not only is it a natural and enjoyable activity, and one essential to getting by in certain parts of the province, it is also an important opportunity for tourism. We believe in extending that argument. It is also an important opportunity for a business to gain. When we talk about revenue in case of a fish licence, you can also relate that back to a revenue in terms of what the province receives from the revenue generated by elk that are being ranched or ultimately being sold out of captivity, the ones that have been acquired over the last two years.
Mr. Struthers: I look very much forward to debating the elk ranching, fishing, tourism, and all those kinds of things. It is an absolutely fascinating--and I assure the minister--a very important discussion. I think he has probably got the wrong dollar figure attached to an elk. I think he is vastly underestimating them at $14,000. I would dare him to put any kind of a price tag on a wild animal. That discussion we can have at a later point.
My question was more specific to the fees that his department is charging on Fisheries. The question was answered in terms of at the very beginning of what the minister said, by stating how tough times are in the country, and how we have to pay for all the services that we have got in the province. I have heard that argument. To a certain extent I agree with what the minister says. I know there is no money tree out there waiting to be picked, but I also understand that there is a group of people out there who want to partake in fishing this summer and this spring, looking forward to buying their new licences here in April, who want to be reassured that their fishing fees are not being dumped into the general revenue pot of the government, because it is a tough time. We are facing all these challenges that this government has told us about ad nauseam over the last little while. I have heard that the federal government is offloading onto the province and that is why they have to cut back as much as they have, and that is why they have to come up with different fees like they have had. I have heard all that before. My question, though, has to do with where the money--that a senior now will be paying $6. I am not asking to debate whether the senior should be paying $6 or not, or whether it should be $6 or $5 or $10 or whatever. What I am asking is: Where is the money going?
I want to say that I was impressed with the answer I got on Parks Fees. I am glad the minister gave me that answer. I would like him to do the same thing with fishing fees. For an example, there is a sticker that you can get on your licence that is specifically designed to be kicked back into conservation and fish stocking, the kinds of things that will help the sport fishing industry. Is that money going to where it is supposed to go, or is that money going into general revenue?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I can say yes, it is going where it is supposed to go, but I will end up giving him pretty much the same explanation in terms of bringing balance by putting money into the Fisheries at the same time as we are taking additional revenue out. I believe I demonstrated that when I indicated the amount of dollars that we are spending in a number of different programs.
The problem I have in answering the question is when it says Fisheries Fees and Sundry--and if the member asked me only to balance off that revenue against what is spent in fish enhancement, habitat improvement and enforcement and all of the other things that are associated with fishery, then I can probably assemble a pretty large number that far exceeds that. I know I can. Probably three, four, five, eight times more, depending on what you want to put into the mix, because there is a portion, certainly, of a number of things that we do that do enhance and improve ultimately, or should improve, protect, the fishery of which the fishermen will partake.
I can tell you that, without being anti-American, it was only intended as a recognition of the real costs that are also being generated by almost every other jurisdiction in this country. We did review our costs against other jurisdictions, or our licence fees against other jurisdictions. We do not want to be outrageously high, nor do we want to be in a position where we are not acquiring appropriate revenue in order to do some of the things that should be done in the relationship with Fisheries. We attempted to position ourselves relative to other jurisdictions to closely approximate some of the fees that were available in other jurisdictions so people who want to travel here do not feel discriminated against and would rather choose to go to Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario or wherever.
In the end, the amount of money--that you can assure anyone who asks you that we can demonstrate there is far more money going back than what we have acquired from fees. That will probably always be the case because sport fishing has so many facets to it. The licence is only a very small part of it. The question was: Can I assure you that the licence dollars are going back to fish enhancement. I can tell you that if you want to trace that dollar, it has to go through general revenues except for the Fisheries Enhancement staff. All of the other revenues are multiplied when they come back out of general revenues.
Mr. Struthers: The amount of money that was raised, that is estimated to be raised, from last year to this year is in the neighbourhood of $23,000. Can I assure the constituent that at least that amount of money over and above last year is going in toward fish enhancement and stocking and that sort of thing, over and above from last year? If that is the kind of assurance and if that is the kind of thing that the minister can show to people, then I think that will go a long way in relieving people's worry that their money is not going back into improving sport fishing or lakes with fish within.
* (1600)
Is the amount of the increases in fishing licences you are projecting keeping pace with the amount of money actually going into those programs?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, at least in the quick glance at the breakdowns that I have in front of me, for example, Fisheries Habitat Management is up marginally, $10,000, but it is up; pardon me, a little less than that. Sport and Commercial Fishing Management is up $4,000. Fisheries Enhancement grant did not go up, but it did not go down either. Fisheries Habitat Management is up another $4,000. So I think we can probably come up with the total against that relatively small amount.
Mr. Struthers: It seemed to me you said one twice there. The minister had said one twice. Maybe I was just slow writing it down. Fisheries Habitat Management for $10,000, Sport enhancement for $4,000, and then Fisheries Habitat Management again? I am just not clear on what the minister said there.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, this is where you get into a bit of a mug's game, and the opposition probably want to call it a shell game. I can find expenditures that would be attributed to fish enhancement that will total that figure readily, but it only makes my point that there are a number of areas where you might not directly see the benefit in dollar for dollar because some of it is going to come out of enforcement, for example. The headings I looked under, Fish Culture is up. Perhaps that is what I misstated. One of them is Fish Culture for $4,000. That is hatcheries. Another area is Fisheries Habitat Management. It is up marginally; it is up a thousand. We can go through all of those areas. Sport and Commercial Fishing Management is up $4,000.
Basically, here we are looking at the support for management and enhancement projects but not the actual cost of the projects. These are the staffing costs. Marginal as they are, it probably simply reflects a hiring of some summer students, but I mean that is how you can easily demonstrate that the monies are going back to areas which the member is interested in.
The Fisheries Enhancement Initiative is $350,000. That is unchanged. That is a direct result of the stamp that was added. I can go back further and see what else we can add to that total if the member is interested, but this could be a little painful.
Mr. Struthers: In talking about the department's Estimates, on the one side you have expenditures of around $92 million, and on the other side you have revenues of around $72.5 million. It may seem strange that I am asking a lot of questions about something that has to do with $23,000. It is a small amount of money in the big picture, I realize that, but when I asked the question in the House two or three weeks ago, I was quoting from what I had been told by this government when these drastic increases were announced a year ago that the money was going back into--part of the reason that they used to sell this idea or soften people up out there who are fisher people or wanting to use our parks, part of the reason they were given why these increases were coming, it was going back into the betterment of the very things in which they were wanting to be active in. From that point of view, I think that it is very important.
It is extremely important for me to get everything laid out in front of me so that I am not giving people the wrong information, so that I am not out there saying something that is not the truth. I would appreciate going through each of these lines in the revenue of the Department of Natural Resources so that I understand exactly what the revenues are, where they are coming from and where they are going to. If it is painful and I have to share in part of that pain, I do not mind. I hope the minister does not mind either.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I simply have to remind the member that this has to be contexted in the overall picture of the cost and the revenues of the Department of Natural Resources and balance that against the responsibilities of government. This is not a totally cost-recovered department. The costs exceed revenues by roughly $20 million. When we have taken our budget and health care takes 34 point some-odd percent of the total budget of the province, and we can go through all the other areas. I remind the member that it is not a matter of softening up the public; it is a matter of whether or not the public agrees that there is an appropriate level at which cost recovery can be achieved--no desire to make it so that anyone in this province is unable or unwilling to acquire a sport licence.
One of the more interesting developments in the last little while is that we now have an urban fishery. The Assiniboine and the Red are producing fish right downtown here. That did not entirely happen by itself. I mean given the reduction and expenditures, that will reduce the impacts on the river through pollution and other means. You could probably look at a dozen different things that this government has done that enhance the river water quality so that can indeed occur. It is not all, in fact, even going to be credited to Natural Resources. I remember well the discussion when I was in Environment with the City of Winnipeg about the ability to treat its waste. I remember well that it is going to cost the City of Winnipeg, and no doubt with assistance in some form through other levels of government--how many hundreds of millions of dollars it is going to cost them to improve their sewage outfalls. All of that goes to enhance fishery. So this happens to be one area where there is a multitude of tie-ins, not all that are directly related to cost. I feel quite confident telling you that your voters or anyone else who asks, well, is the government ripping me off and putting the money into a sock somewhere, it ain't happening, because there is a lot more than what we are taking in this area that is going in to enhance our fishery.
Mr. Struthers: Well, I appreciate what the minister is saying, and he has pointed out that there is a $20-million difference in the revenue that is generated through these fees and the money that he gets flowed to him through Treasury Board. I understand that it is not a cost-recovery department. What I am getting at is that the difference between the two would be a lot greater than $20 million if he did not have the park entry fees that he has increased over the last year. The $20 million would be a lot greater if he would not have increased the fishing licences $6 for seniors. That is the point that I am trying to get to. What I want the minister to do is convince me that is not happening.
Mr. Cummings: The other thing that we should put on the table then is that this province has a fairly long history of having almost the best of every program in terms of health and social services and having some of the lowest fees in the country for some of its natural resource licences. I would be the first to acknowledge, not just under the recent years but over a period of years, this province and others have adjusted the cost to the user of harvesting the natural resources. I think if you do a review of the scale of changes that have occurred here, and if you balance that off against what has occurred in other jurisdictions, I believe I can adequately defend the level of charges that we put against those who harvest here. In fact, forestry, for example, there might well be increases needed there given in the future. I suppose I am probably going to eat those words somewhere down the road, but the fact is we have to be realistic in how we approach the costs of harvesting our resources.
I go back to the example of the member says you cannot put a value on some of our wildlife. I suppose intrinsically that is true, but if you go to the Department of Tourism, they can probably quantify in some respect the value of attracting 20 American fishermen to a catch-and-release lake in northern Manitoba where they want to spend a week and where they drop $200-tips for the waitress or the cook.
* (1610)
The fact is these are enormous opportunities which you can put some value against. There is the intrinsic value of being able to view the animal, to enjoy seeing it in its natural setting. As someone who has harvested natural resources all his life through farming and other means, I do not find that offensive, but I know that there are others who believe that even hunting should not occur. I am sure the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) would be my ally in that case, because it is a natural evolution of an ebb and flow of life when you live in certain parts of this province. [interjection] There are no what?
An Honourable Member: There are no waitresses up there.
Mr. Struthers: I am sure the minister will find that we would all be his allies when we talk about certain things, but he has not reassured me that fishing fee that he is charging is not going into general revenue. We can debate all we like about whether you are charging enough or too much or whether stumpage fees are high enough or low enough, which is probably another area we can support you in. You will not be eating those words. But you have not answered the question that I had about where these fees are going.
What I would suggest we do is we can move on to the next line that asks about forestry fees, and I noticed that they are down to the tune of $600,000 or so, and I want to spend some time to get a handle on just exactly where all the revenue is coming from for the Department of Natural Resources. Maybe the minister could enlighten me a little bit when it comes to the forestry fees and what that make-up is and where that money is going.
Mr. Cummings: The forestry increases are quite minor. They amount to a little over a quarter of a million dollars for individuals and contractors for timber dues, timber dues for the roundwood harvest by Repap, dues and fire protection charge for Pine Falls. That makes up the changes which total a quarter of a million dollars. That is the increase; that is not the total nor is it the only revenue where they come from stumpage. Now did the member want the bigger figures? I guess we have the macro figure, which is slightly under $6 million and in fact it is down for this year.
Mr. Struthers: The Land Information Sales and Fees--I noticed there is an increase there. Can the minister explain that one to me as well?
Mr. Cummings: Crown land rental fees--there is a $1,000 increase in total revenue. Appraised market value for land and facilities occupied by TransCanada Pipeline has gone up by a half of 1 percent in lieu of taxes. That is a $33,000 revenue. Application fee for Crown land at $20 per application provides about $2,000-increase in sale of back tier lots at Setting Lake another $5,000. So these are all very small changes and Crown land rentals for commercial operators from 3.6 percent of appraised market value, plus $10 per acre to a consistent rate of $210 annually, plus $10 per acre or portion for sites that are larger than one acre. It is really minor adjustments of the revenues that are regularly earned in those areas.
Mr. Struthers: Licence Sales by Vendors. There is an increase there as well, and I know that the minister had talked about that earlier on when we were talking about fishing licences. Does the same answer apply then as it does now, or is there more detail to that one?
Mr. Cummings: The major portion of that would be the implementation of the wildlife conservation fee at $5 per licence; game bird and big game licence, increase of $94,000; and vendor commissions go from 50 cents to $1. That reduces the above revenue by $40,000. [interjection] That was the increase in the vendor fee. Cost is offset against the value of the increase.
Mr. Struthers: We have spent enough time talking about the Parks Fees and neither one of us want to go back through that, I suppose, unless the first time around we did not cover any bases, and the minister has any more advice for me on that score. It is just that it is the next line in the revenue there and it shows an increase of about $1.7 million.
Mr. Cummings: That is what we have already covered. That is all covered.
Mr. Struthers: The next line in that is Regional Operations Fees and Cost Recovery. There was a slight decrease in that. I wonder if the minister can explain what the change was.
Mr. Cummings: The main impact on that line is that the grant Snoman is now eliminated from that line, because the revenue does not come into government anymore. It goes directly to the Snoman fund for '97-98.
Mr. Struthers: The next line under revenue indicates that Water Power Rentals was perhaps the biggest increase in revenue that the department came across. It looks like around a $3.1-million increase. Can the minister explain his good fortune in getting that kind of money?
Mr. Cummings: This is revenue from Manitoba Hydro for the Water Power generation. It is reflective of volumes, I am told, and there are probably other influencing factors. I am not able to answer--I simply do not know the answer beyond that.
Mr. Struthers: The $3 million that is projected to be higher this year, is that earmarked to go anywhere in specific?
* (1620)
Mr. Cummings: That would, obviously, be general revenues, but I guess I am going to have to keep repeating this. The member says both of us are students in this respect. Well, I am going to have to, for emphasis, repeat again that the department is not a direct dollar-for-dollar revenue-to-expenditure appropriation. There have to be priority decisions made on how we can best manage with the dollars that are made available, and as much as possible, particularly in the smaller fees where the member was questioning about parks and harvesting and wildlife, harvesting licences, et cetera, that we want to make sure that we are well within the range of competitiveness and reasonableness. But this is a perfect example of what can easily be characterized as general revenue for government.
Mr. Struthers: I appreciate the minister repeating that again for my benefit, and I understand simply by looking, I mean, I appreciate his doing it. There is not a need to do it. I can understand just by looking at the numbers that I have that it is not a department that is based on cost recovery. I should not use the word "drain," but it takes money from the general revenues, from Treasury Board, to the tune of around $19.5 million or $20 million.
I understand that, but I also know that being a farmer in his past life, before he became an MLA, the minister also knows that you want to get as much bang for your buck as you can, like any other farmer in this province. He wants to know where his money is going and he wants to know that the money that he is investing in his operation is going to go specifically for the target that he set for that money. To operate any other way would not be a very fiscally responsible way to do it. So I say again that, even if it does sound like small amounts that we are dealing with in a $91-million or $92-million expenditure, I think that the taxpayers ought to know exactly where their money is going, and I think people who participate in these activities ought to be assured that their money is going to what the government tells them it is going to.
Now, if the minister wants to explain to fishermen that their money is going towards general revenue or if their park fees are going to general revenue because they do not have the bucks, that is fine. I would suggest that he would go out and defend his idea on that basis. If he is going to tell the fishermen that the fishing money is going towards enhancement and to restocking or that the park fees are going towards new toilets in the parks or new camping tables or picnic tables, then he can defend it on that.
I just want to make sure that he understands that they cannot answer my question in the House one way, when it was first asked, and then have it not reflected in the numbers when we come into Estimates. That is all I am trying to get to, and I think this is an opportunity for the minister to clarify exactly where the money has been going.
With that, I see no change listed under Water Resources Sundry. Wildlife Sundry is up $35,000. I would like to know where that money is coming from and where it is going to as well.
Mr. Cummings: That would basically be a lot of small adjustments. We would have to get the details and show you what it is. Remember that these are revenue estimates. A lot of this will ultimately depend on actual sales of licences, if that is the topic, or harvestable wood, for that matter. I still think the member is trying to put words in my mouth, however, when he says, prove to me that the increased fees are going back to benefit my sport. There are literally millions of dollars that go into the fishery side of the responsibilities, and he would be more accurate to reflect the cost as a reasonable contribution towards offsetting the cost of looking after that sport, whichever one he wants to zero in on. I can assure you that the money is going back in.
When you say prove it, the dollars are not tracked and earmarked dollar by dollar, but the dollars are returned to programs within the department that adequately enhance and protect the resource that we are dealing with. I think this department is as good an example as any where you could spend an enormously larger budget if you had an opportunity to do it. But where is that revenue going to come from? Is it going to come from increase--this is the flip side of the question. Do you want to increase fees to increase the expenditures in this area only? Do you want to take general revenues from gasoline tax? It goes directly back to the type of thinking and question, albeit legitimate, about whether or not the fees against cottagers in lieu of education taxes, whether that, in fact, is going to benefit education.
The best example, which I failed to give at that moment, is Frontier School Division. They do not have a tax base really, and there is an area where there is lots of revenue comes to the province because of the resource harvesting and the income taxes paid by a good portion of the parents and families that contribute students to that system.
So the better judgment of the effectiveness of the dollars is whether or not you do have a good fishery, whether or not you have a fishery that is reasonably priced for recreation, whether it is reasonably priced and attractive to those who wish to come from out of province. All of those factors add up to what I think is a pretty good picture from everything I know of the condition and the saleability and the value and the tourism-value of the resources. But we do have work to do in the commercial fishery and some of the sport fishery, and we could always argue for more dollars.
* (1630)
Mr. Chairperson: Just for clarification from the committee. We are dealing with 1.(b) Executive Support at this time. That does cover off pretty much all the policy issues throughout all the lines, but I am hearing questions coming that relate directly to other lines I do believe. So I am not sure if there is consensus of this committee at this time to be drifting all over the Estimates or if we should be dealing line by line, because I am not sure if the minister has his staff here for all the other lines or how you wanted to deal with it. So could I get what the will of the committee would be on this?
Mr. Struthers: Just to clarify, right at the beginning what I wanted to do was establish sort of two things. One was where the department was getting its money from which is listed here in the Estimates of Revenue and so I zeroed in on page 10, No. 3. Other Revenue, under Natural Resources, and I have been proceeding through that line by line, and I think I have been getting some answers on where the fees and the revenue have been coming from and where it has been going to.
I realize that sort of means that we are jumping all over the place in terms of the rest of the Estimates, but it gives me a good idea on where the department is getting its money from, and once we get more into the expenditure side of it, we can also see better where the money is going to. I do not mind continuing like this. There is just another line or two to be done on the Revenue side if the minister is still willing to go that way.
Mr. Chairperson: Is the minister comfortable with that then? [agreed]
The honourable member for Dauphin, to continue then.
Mr. Struthers: Having said all that and listened intently to what the minister just spoke of, I did not catch where the money on the Wildlife Sundry was actually coming from and what it was earmarked for.
Mr. Cummings: What I said was I think he stumped us on the $25,000 item. Out of a $91-million budget, I guess I will forgive my deputy. The fact is it is a multitude of small items that would make up that. We will get you the information.
Mr. Struthers: Noting this sarcasm in the minister's voice, I will assume then that if I dare ask about the last line, (j), which just says Sundry, that I am going to get about the same kind of an answer. Is that an accurate statement to make?
Mr. Cummings: Correct.
Mr. Struthers: Okay. I do not think I have any more questions having to do with those lines of the revenue. If there is any more information that the minister can provide outside of Estimates, any information that he thinks might help me to get a better grasp of where that money is all coming from and where it is going to, I would appreciate him doing that. As I said before, it makes it for me more clear today where the money has been coming from and where it is going to, and it gives me a much better sense about how I can handle some questions that I get from people interested in Natural Resources activities.
I think what we can do is move on from that line, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $383,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $83,800--pass.
1.(c) Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $625,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $334,000--pass.
1.(d) Financial Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,178,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $296,100--pass.
1.(e) Human Resource Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $797,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $154,000--pass.
1.(f) Resource Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $694,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $58,400--pass.
We will move on to 2. 2. Regional Operations (a) Headquarters Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,160,600.
Mr. Struthers: I do not know if this is the correct line to bring this up in, but I am sure the minister will point me in the right direction if it is not. I have had people come to me wondering about the Hunter Safety program. Upon reading through on page 35 of the Estimates, it talks about co-ordinating the delivery of the Hunter Safety and Firearm Training Course. The question that I was asked that I will ask the minister is the Hunter Safety program being moved to the jurisdiction of the Manitoba Wildlife Federation?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, the member is correct. Those types of considerations are under discussion, but that is what it is at this point is discussion to improve co-ordination.
Mr. Struthers: Is there a time line that we should be aware of, or is that something that is going to take place soon?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, there are no deadlines that we have set for ourselves. There has always been a desire--particularly since firearm legislation is somewhat under scrutiny and hunting itself, the Hunter Safety is always under scrutiny by society lately--that this be a well co-ordinated program. I might, for the record, like to point out that it was always my opinion that one of the best grassroots organizations out there in terms of producing safe young people who are capable of handling firearms for recreational or hunting purposes or target, which is what I would call recreational I guess, is the junior rifle program in Manitoba, and one which I strongly endorse, having had a son who went through the program, incidentally, who is not a hunter but, nevertheless, has had a very successful program there.
* (1640)
But there are other ways that we can work with the Wildlife Federation as well to co-ordinate, primarily to make sure that we have safety in the field. While I am not familiar with what is happening today in the department, I am familiar from other perspectives of why this would be under discussion and from my own knowledge at this point why I would encourage that discussion to continue because while the department can apply resources, greater or lesser degree, one of the best ways of getting the program out there operating successfully in the field is through a co-operative program with those who are actively interested in the sport.
Mr. Struthers: First of all, I want to echo the words, the congratulatory words that the minister stated in terms of the program. Being a school teacher in small communities in rural Manitoba, I have known several young people who have gone through the program and have done very well and enjoy now a pastime of hunting or any of the other sports involved with guns, and I believe they are much safer and much more skilled now than they were before they entered the program. So I join with the minister in congratulating the people involved with the Hunter Safety Training Course.
I am interested in knowing what exactly this means for the Department of Natural Resources now. Will it mean less money being expended by the department? Will there be any costs that the department would maybe have to pick up as the program is moved over to the Manitoba Wildlife Federation?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, it is far too early in the process to make definitive statements, but we would be interested in any proposals they might bring forward. Then, of course, we have to evaluate the effectiveness and the outcomes. If there is a different way that the program could be delivered, fine, but I really would be speculating to say much more than that.
Mr. Struthers: Can the minister indicate if there would be a substantial difference at all in the course itself--the skills that they teach, the rules that they follow, the practices that they do, the training program that they go through with the students? Will there be any substantive changes to the program by doing this?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, the member for Dauphin is probably as well aware as I am of the interaction that may or may not occur with federal legislation. I think he is well aware of the position of this government regarding gun registration and I believe supports it. The fact is that part of their program has been to talk about or--not talk about it, to require people having met certain standards. Going beyond that, at this point, would be speculation on the part of myself.
The problem is, obviously, that we are not sure where the federal legislation is going. We know where we want it to go, and we know what we believe should happen on the ground, but it may not entirely be our call on some issues. We want, in the end, to have as good a safety training program as we can muster available to those who wish to be involved with firearms in this province and hunt or target or whatever purpose.
The member is correct in identifying that there is an issue there, but I assure him I cannot give him anything other than the broad philosophical statement that I just gave because of the potential for third-party interest to come to bear on this.
I can expand in this respect. I remember being offended that what I thought were some pretty good safety programs might not be recognized by those who are attempting to set national standards for safety, and I heartily disagree with that. Our position has not changed on that, and this government's position on firearm registration and all the safety aspects is well known.
Mr. Struthers: I am not sure if I understood the minister correctly. Is the federal government's Bill C-68 the catalyst for causing this to change hands? Maybe the minister can enlighten me there.
Mr. Cummings: No, it is the other way around. There is always reason for government to look at the best way of delivering programs. That is all this discussion is about, but proceeding with it may well be going slower than anyone would have predicted two or three years ago because of the other influence. So it is really the other way around. We are quite pleased with the programs that are out there, but I know the Wildlife Federation and others, for that matter, have a significant interest and want to be involved, so why should we reject any discussions with them. We are quite interested in what they might have to say or what they might have to offer, and that is why I referenced the junior rifle program. Ultimately they meet safety standards that are approved by the province but, really, what better example of delivering a program that has significant benefits out there without having to be done by a civil servant.
Mr. Struthers: Does that then leave any role at all for the Department of Natural Resources in regulating the content that is offered, whether it be the way the program is handled now or whether the program will be handled by the Wildlife Federation? Does the province still have the regulatory jurisdiction or does that now mean that the federal government is going to have its fingers in it?
Mr. Cummings: No, the member is probably fishing. I mean, he is trying to get me to answer hypothetical questions that are not going to do anybody any good. I stated where we were heading. We were always open to these types of third party and interested parties co-operation and maybe even delivering programs. I mentioned the federal issue and I now regret mentioning it because it really is not a significant factor in this; this is a local situation, but there is a third-party factor out there with some of the expectations, at least, that were raised with the federal government straying into firearm registration and then some of the spin-offs that were coming from that.
Beyond that I really am unprepared to comment any further. This becomes entirely hypothetical. The bottom line is safety and we are not going to give up anything that would compromise safety.
Mr. Struthers: The reassurance that I received from that answer was that the province would still have a regulatory role to play. I certainly was not going fishing, because I know this minister would then charge me a fee to do it and probably dump that back into general revenues or something, and we would be back into that whole argument again. So he can bet that I was not fishing on that, no.
I just noticed here that all in the same line they mentioned the Hunter-Killed Livestock Compensation Program. That still remains though where it is within the Department of Natural Resources? Are any changes contemplated along the terms with that program or is that as is?
Mr. Cummings: No.
Mr. Struthers: That is fine, Mr. Chairman.
* (1650)
Mr. Chairperson: 2.(a) Headquarters Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,160,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,005,300--pass; (3) Problem Wildlife Control $272,000--pass.
2.(b) Northwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,823,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $635,800--pass.
2.(c) Northeast Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,019,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $879,700--pass.
2.(d) Central Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,100,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,560,700--pass.
2.(e) Eastern Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $3,058,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $831,700--pass.
2.(f) Western Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,035,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,450,700--pass. 2.(g) Fire Program (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,760,100. Shall the item pass?
Mr. Struthers: In our opening statements, we talked a lot about the floods. I noted that last year and the year before, as I was asking flood questions in the House, I was joined by my colleague from Flin Flon asking a lot of fire questions.
One of the things that the Department of Natural Resources can do is prepare itself somewhat for the eventuality of floods and fires. It may be easier on the flood side than on the fire side. I am interested in getting kind of a general synopsis of what the department is doing to prepare itself for fire season.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I know from seeing the budget process unfold that, in fact, the department starts planning eight months ahead of the fire season or even longer in respect of upgrading and tendering and preparing their major pieces of equipment for the following year. In that respect, just to be specific, the department has upgraded some of the helicopters it will have in place for this coming year.
Nevertheless, getting away from the specific to the more broad range, that leads directly into tendering. Those suppliers are tendered, and those tenders have been out and have closed. Some of those close in January, some of them probably even earlier than that for the upcoming fire year, I suppose, because you have to make sure you have the equipment available to be tendered frankly. All those eventually, however, have to be built into the total budget process for the department.
Following on that, of course, the budget does have to be established; first of all, base budget and allocations for extraordinary costs. Seasonal staff is already in the process of being recalled, as I understand it. Inventory cases are being put together for replenishment of supplies as they are used on demand. Some of them have already been delivered to the North, I believe, or more northerly locations, I guess I should say. No predicting accurately where the fires may unfold, but we know, unless something has changed in the last month, I am looking at my staff here, the North is possibly to be dry again. The moisture content right now is lower than normal. There is potential for fires, but that could change.
At the same time, when that seasonal staff is coming on and working, there will be training upgrades for those who would be primarily responsible people certainly in getting staffed up for the upcoming season. You do not want inexperienced staff. You have got to be prepared, the same as any other fire department.
That leads me to a general comment, that having reviewed the capabilities of the DNR firefighting capabilities and the staff that are responsible and by some broad comparisons with other jurisdictions, costs, safety records and the competence of the crews and equipment made available and their record of success or otherwise, I think all Manitobans can take significant comfort in the competence and the efficiency for fires handled and a number of other criteria that you might want to apply to it.
Manitoba has one of the lowest cost and quicker response times of most comparable jurisdictions. I am pleased to say that I have inherited a very competent firefighting capability, my responsibilities in this department. It is one of those areas where you hope you do not have to use them, but you know that you will sooner or later. The ability to respond quickly to strikes is vastly enhanced by some of the electronic capability that the department now has, the ability which amazed me.
I knew of it in a broad sense but now, having been briefed on it a little more closely, the capability to identify and locate all of the lightning strikes that occurred overnight and at daybreak have planes in the air being guided by global positioning systems to where the lightning strikes have occurred and being there prior to there potentially being a fire, going to check and see if there is something smouldering or if that strike did in fact cause potential for a fire, to be there before that breaks out is a pretty impressive capability. Obviously when you have got hundreds or more strikes, you have to prioritize areas, I am told. Nevertheless, it is a pretty impressive list of capabilities that the department has been able to demonstrate; 1989 was sort of the year from hell I guess in terms of fire, flood and pestilence. Nevertheless, it was an experience that the department survived and learned from. I believe they have a very quick response capability right now.
Mr. Struthers: I am interested, just for a moment, in the seasonal staff that is hired and trained and then out there actually fighting the fire, and I am looking under the Fire Program. Staff years for managerial is one. Out of the staff years that are listed in that column, how many of those staff years would be accounted in seasonal?
Mr. Cummings: There are over 50 of those that would be considered seasonal.
* (1700)
Mr. Chairperson: The hour being five o'clock, time for private members' hour.
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.